Free Speech

[rk9152]

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

Much has been made about the "feelings of the students" but remember, we are not talking about a democratic election making these determinations - we are talking about mobs.

That raises two issues - first, what percentage of the student body is the demonstrating mobs? Secondly, let's say only 20% of the student body wants to hear a speaker - are they not entitled to hear him?

---

The "speaker" has the right to get a permit and speak on public property and the students you speak of have the right to attend. You see ...... it's so simple.

---

Does anyone have the right to have an appearance cancelled via the threat of violence? Do dissenters have the right to shout down the speaker you mentioned above or do those wanting to hear him have the right to do so?

If it's that simple address it.

---

Yes, the University can cancel anyone's appearance for whatever reason they desire to use.  Don't like it?  Take it to court.

Oh, are you referring to the "dissenters" trying to "shout down" the KKK speakers in Charlottesville just before one of the KKK members/supporters ran his vehicle into a crown of "dissenters", killing one woman and injuring dozens?

Yes, the protesters have the right to "shout down" hate speech.

---

Same "Yeah, me too" weak point - same intelligent answer.

---

My post stands and there is no "yeah me too" in it. Everything I posted is true, sometime that is confusing to trump supporters.

---

You really should try to get yourself unwrapped from that "Trump supporters" nonsense.

Presidents come and Presidents go but basic core political beliefs remain constant in the individual. Correction - in the thinking individual. Those ruled by blind hatred and the need to "belong to the Klatch" apparently are more flexible.

[rk9152]

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@williamb39198 wrote:

@Olderscout66

For sure. Things have changed and not for the good. And it’s not about hate, it’s about seeking the truth. 

@rk9152

So much for a wish of courtesy. But, I do agree with you. With trump, his base, trump supporters, trump repubs, freedom caucus, racists, supremists, and ultra right conservatives...things have sunk to an all time new low! Terrible behavior!

Never Forget

---

I'm not sure of your point. Can you point to left wing speakers disinvited over the threat of violence, shouted down, or stopped by mob violence?

---

Left wing speakers don't promote bigotry, white supremacy, separatism, bash those with different sexual preferences, denigrate those of certain religions, discriminate against women, promote violence by showing up wearing helmets, carrying shields and displaying weapons. That's why they haven't been "dis-invited".

---

Condoleezza Rice didn't speak at Rutgers because of student protests. Which of your claims above apply to her.

John Cornyn"s invitation to speak at TSU was rescinded due to student protests. Is he one of your made up list above?

Now, back to the basic question I asked -  Can you point to left wing speakers disinvited over the threat of violence, shouted down, or stopped by mob violence?

---

Evidently you didn't read this, it answers your question:  

Left wing speakers don't promote bigotry, white supremacy, separatism, bash those with different sexual preferences, denigrate those of certain religions, discriminate against women, promote violence by showing up wearing helmets, carrying shields and displaying weapons. That's why they haven't been "dis-invited".

---

Yep, so snoopy said - another "Yeah, me too". I'll give you the same type answer - what violence does Ann Coulter push? What helmet have you seen on John Cornyn? Which women did Condi Rice discriminate against?

---

You asked me why left wing speakers weren't "dis-invited" and I gave you the reasons. Ann Coulter, John Cornyn and Condi Rice have nothing to do with my answer.

---

You claimed it was related to bigotry and the rest of the stew. Yet those I mentioned were dropped - are they bigots.

As to why lefties are not dropped - they speak the language of the average university. So, any objections are not acted on. Plus, we on the right respect free speech and want to see all sides offered to students so they can grow and make their own decisions. So, we do not don masks and smash property to stop a speaker.

[alferdpacker]

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@Richva wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@Richva wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

In the early '60s Ayn Rand was on a speaking tour addressing large audiences in such places as Yale, MIT, Princeton, Columbia (the home of the Frankfurt School), and many more.

This was before Mario Savio started the "Free Speech Movement" and yet she was "free to speak.

Can you imagine that today what with antifa, disinvitations, the need for police escorts, safe zones for the snowflakes, pc, etc..

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

---

I am not sure of the reason for this rant. Did somebody turn down a permit for the American Nazi Party to march through the streets or something? 

Surely you jest.

---

Well, I probably do.  On the other hand, I AM treating this subject with the seriousness it deserves. 

---

Do you really consider the loss of the free exchange of ideas in college to mob rule to be not a serious issue worth your valuable time to consider?

---

Is my adult Navajo/Ute/Hispanic wife within her constitutionally granted free speech rights to say to persons who admit to voting for trump or to supporting trump - that it's her opinion that the nation would be a better place if they had been aborted?

Simple answer - yes or no - is saying that within one's constitutional free speech rights?

Would a republican support her constitutional right to say that?

[rk9152]

---

@Richva wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@Richva wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

In the early '60s Ayn Rand was on a speaking tour addressing large audiences in such places as Yale, MIT, Princeton, Columbia (the home of the Frankfurt School), and many more.

This was before Mario Savio started the "Free Speech Movement" and yet she was "free to speak.

Can you imagine that today what with antifa, disinvitations, the need for police escorts, safe zones for the snowflakes, pc, etc..

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

---

I am not sure of the reason for this rant. Did somebody turn down a permit for the American Nazi Party to march through the streets or something? 

Surely you jest.

---

Well, I probably do.  On the other hand, I AM treating this subject with the seriousness it deserves. 

---

Do you really consider the loss of the free exchange of ideas in college to mob rule to be not a serious issue worth your valuable time to consider?

[gruffstuff]

The Ann Coulter comment is approval of speech suppression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Can you or I suppress speech on our property or in our business ?

Absolutely.

Colleges can and should seek a balance between speech and protest that serves the best interest of the college.

If the KKK Kollege wants to invite Richard Spencer to speak they should be able to do that.

If Berkley tells Richard Spencer he can't speak there, that is a good thing.

The Richard Spencers and Ann Coulters of the world can go speak all they want on the Internet,  UTube, or FaceBook.

They have freedom of speech, just not on private property that tells them they don't.

[ChasKy53]

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

Much has been made about the "feelings of the students" but remember, we are not talking about a democratic election making these determinations - we are talking about mobs.

That raises two issues - first, what percentage of the student body is the demonstrating mobs? Secondly, let's say only 20% of the student body wants to hear a speaker - are they not entitled to hear him?

---

The "speaker" has the right to get a permit and speak on public property and the students you speak of have the right to attend. You see ...... it's so simple.

---

Does anyone have the right to have an appearance cancelled via the threat of violence? Do dissenters have the right to shout down the speaker you mentioned above or do those wanting to hear him have the right to do so?

If it's that simple address it.

---

Yes, the University can cancel anyone's appearance for whatever reason they desire to use.  Don't like it?  Take it to court.

Oh, are you referring to the "dissenters" trying to "shout down" the KKK speakers in Charlottesville just before one of the KKK members/supporters ran his vehicle into a crown of "dissenters", killing one woman and injuring dozens?

Yes, the protesters have the right to "shout down" hate speech.

---

Same "Yeah, me too" weak point - same intelligent answer.

---

My post stands and there is no "yeah me too" in it. Everything I posted is true, sometime that is confusing to trump supporters.

[ChasKy53]

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@williamb39198 wrote:

@Olderscout66

For sure. Things have changed and not for the good. And it’s not about hate, it’s about seeking the truth. 

@rk9152

So much for a wish of courtesy. But, I do agree with you. With trump, his base, trump supporters, trump repubs, freedom caucus, racists, supremists, and ultra right conservatives...things have sunk to an all time new low! Terrible behavior!

Never Forget

---

I'm not sure of your point. Can you point to left wing speakers disinvited over the threat of violence, shouted down, or stopped by mob violence?

---

Left wing speakers don't promote bigotry, white supremacy, separatism, bash those with different sexual preferences, denigrate those of certain religions, discriminate against women, promote violence by showing up wearing helmets, carrying shields and displaying weapons. That's why they haven't been "dis-invited".

---

Condoleezza Rice didn't speak at Rutgers because of student protests. Which of your claims above apply to her.

John Cornyn"s invitation to speak at TSU was rescinded due to student protests. Is he one of your made up list above?

Now, back to the basic question I asked -  Can you point to left wing speakers disinvited over the threat of violence, shouted down, or stopped by mob violence?

---

Evidently you didn't read this, it answers your question:  

Left wing speakers don't promote bigotry, white supremacy, separatism, bash those with different sexual preferences, denigrate those of certain religions, discriminate against women, promote violence by showing up wearing helmets, carrying shields and displaying weapons. That's why they haven't been "dis-invited".

---

Yep, so snoopy said - another "Yeah, me too". I'll give you the same type answer - what violence does Ann Coulter push? What helmet have you seen on John Cornyn? Which women did Condi Rice discriminate against?

---

You asked me why left wing speakers weren't "dis-invited" and I gave you the reasons. Ann Coulter, John Cornyn and Condi Rice have nothing to do with my answer.

[Richva]

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@Richva wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

In the early '60s Ayn Rand was on a speaking tour addressing large audiences in such places as Yale, MIT, Princeton, Columbia (the home of the Frankfurt School), and many more.

This was before Mario Savio started the "Free Speech Movement" and yet she was "free to speak.

Can you imagine that today what with antifa, disinvitations, the need for police escorts, safe zones for the snowflakes, pc, etc..

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

---

I am not sure of the reason for this rant. Did somebody turn down a permit for the American Nazi Party to march through the streets or something? 

Surely you jest.

---

Well, I probably do.  On the other hand, I AM treating this subject with the seriousness it deserves. 

[rk9152]

---

@Richva wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

In the early '60s Ayn Rand was on a speaking tour addressing large audiences in such places as Yale, MIT, Princeton, Columbia (the home of the Frankfurt School), and many more.

This was before Mario Savio started the "Free Speech Movement" and yet she was "free to speak.

Can you imagine that today what with antifa, disinvitations, the need for police escorts, safe zones for the snowflakes, pc, etc..

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

---

I am not sure of the reason for this rant. Did somebody turn down a permit for the American Nazi Party to march through the streets or something? 

Surely you jest.

[rk9152]

---

@Snoopy48 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@Snoopy48 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

---

@rk9152 wrote:

---

 did schumer approve wall in the past

A university can invite anyone they want. I am objecting to the mobs shouting a speaker down or causing a disinvite (sic) with threats of violence.

---

I can't see your lips, a good thing.

Universities make their own decisions based on whatever they want. Are you against people shouting down white supremacist hate speech?

Is the TOS "speech suppression"?

Once again - A university can invite anyone they want. I am objecting to the mobs shouting a speaker down or causing a disinvite (sic) with threats of violence.

---

---

The University had the right to base their decision on whatever they chose to, even taking into account the students desires made known by protesting. 

Is the TOS "speech suppression"? 

---

Do you approve of the threat of violence in order to have a speaker not invited, disinvited, or shut down? Not "desires made known" - violence.

---

The speakers should not be making threats and advocating violence and they wouldn’t get shut down, disinvited or not invited.

---

What threats has Ann Coulter made???

---

Guess you have never listened to Ann Coulter.

---

No seriously, in the context of this topic - what threats has Ann Coulter made?